captioning performed by vitac >> -- without imposing a middle class tax hike. >> yeah, just to add to that, the power of the irs is directly related to the complexity of the tax code. the more complexity we build into the tax code, the more power we give government to collect taxes or administer laws, the more powerful i'll bureaucratic agencies become, especially the internal revenue service. earlier in this conversation, someone brought up obamacare. obamacare has forced the irs to add additional employees just to enforce that law. and so i think what we're trying to get here is to a point that is flatter and simpler and thereby he'deasier to administer and i think it would have implications on other regulatory

agencies in america that are also engaged directly or indirectly in the administration of our tax code as well. >> please join me in thanking senator lee and senator rubio. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you.

next week the united states will begin chairing the arctic council, a group that sets policy for the arctic, regarding drilling and other issues. eight countries are members of the arctic council, the u.s., canada, denmark, finland iceland, norway, russia, and sweden. and this morning at the center for strategic and international studies the chairman of the senate energy and natural resources committee, police leesiae ia lisa murkowski of alaska, is speaking. some of the issues also facing the arctic such as climate change, pollution and the health of the indigenous people who live in the arctic the discussion expected to last several hours should get under way shortly. this meeting happening, this international meeting happening as a number of other international ministers and leaders have been in washington over the past couple of days including the financial ministers of several countries with the imf meetings going on, the president meeting with african leaders the other day. and today meeting with the prime minister of italy. the two will hold a joint news

conference. president obama and prime minister renzi today. we will cover that, that will be live on our companion network c-span2. and news this morning from the associated press that top japan and u.s. trade officials plan to meet this weekend, seeking to close gaps over autos and farm trade before prime minister shinzo abe visits washington later this month. and this coming on the heels of the news late yesterday that key congressional leaders have agreed with president obama on legislation giving the president special authority to finish the trade accords the tpp trade authority. this event here at csis should get under way momentarily. live here on c-span3.

as we wait for this event on the arctic council to get under way, here at the center for strategic and international studies, we'll bring you some of the comments from last night from the secretary-general of the u.n., ban ki-moon. >> i asked one of our very senior advisers who has been working longer than definitely 40 years long serving advisers. i asked him, because i have been so much troubled by all what is

happening in this world, have you ever seen during your press life at the united nations such a time when we are having so many fires taking place all around the world at once? at a time like this? i can name a list of ten hot spots immediately, in addition to continuing economic difficulties around the world. he said he has never experienced a such time and it is mostly one or two crisis happening here and there. but now we have a list ten headline news, ted headheadline crisis. in addition to this headline crisis you follow on a daily basis, we have many forgotten

crisis or frozen crisis. i would not name which are the foregotten or frozen cases. you will know better than i do because you have been following all the times. we face really many crisis at once. there are minimum 50 million refugees around the world. that's our job. to provide daily food, sanitation, water, education. this is a huge burden for many people who are sick, many people who are out of school, many children. united nations responsibility is getting more and more -- the united nations has appealed $16 billion to cover humanitarian relief for this year.

almost five times what we needed a decade ago. that's a huge increase exponential increase. billions of people face hatred and prosecution. billions suffer from hunger and exploitation. and billions of dollars continue to be -- >> -- everyone welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. my name is heather conley, senior vice president for europe, eurasia and the arctic. i'm extremely proud that the arctic is in my formal title. we here at csis in our program have a tradition. we host a public conversation just a few days before an arctic council ministerial. so we have had in 2011 the road to nuke. in 2013, the road to karuna. today, we have the road to iqaluit.

senator murkowski says it is also said iqaluit. so iqaluit or iqaluit but we're off to nunavit next week. and i could think of no more perfect speaker to offer some reflections just eight days before the united states assumes the arctic council chairmanship than a person who has been in nuke and karuna participating as part of the u.s. delegation to speak with us and that is senator lisa murkowski. she serves as a member of the senate health education, labor and pensions committee as well as the senate indian affairs committee. so, senator murkowski, you could not be better placed to help give us these insights. senator murkowski, i think of one of you as one of the key

leaders, people seek you out to hear your thoughts on u.s. policy toward the arctic. you fearlessly hold hear whgz the u.s. government shuts down keeping that focus on the arctic. you are someone who encourages the administration to do more and applause them when they do yet you are very clear in your analysis when you -- and criticism when you think the u.s. administration has not quite made the mark. but clearly you are tirelessly working with your other senate colleagues to tell them why the arctic matters to them. we're so delighted the senate now has an arctic working group with you and senator king from maine providing that leadership. you often talk about the arctic opportunity, economics scientific environmental and national security opportunity. and clearly next week the united states has an extraordinary opportunity to show leadership in the arctic. so with your applause, will you please join me in welcoming senator murkowski to the podium. [ applause ]

>> thank you. thank you. heather, thank you. and good morning to you all. it is always a good morning when we can gather together to talk about places of great opportunity. and i can think of no other place on planet earth where we have more opportunity than the arctic. as was mentioned, and as we all know, those that are focused on the area of opportunity next week, a week from today, the united states will assume the chair of the arctic council for the next two years now. this is truly an exciting opportunity for us. for those of us who have been pushing for some time now to really place the arctic in a space of greater national

priority. certainly heather, those of you here at csis have embraced that position. and i really thank you for your continued interest, the advocacy on the arctic issues. not only today but in the years leading up. but your presence today, those of you who have joined us those who are joining by the internet you're showing your interest again in a topic that is really quite keen right now. i don't -- i probably don't need to impress upon you why the arctic matters to the united states. i would suggest to you that perhaps the biggest challenge that we face right now on arctic policy is not with other members of the arctic council including russia. it is not with the rest of the international community, which is taking a very interested

focus on the far north. it is not with the permanent participant groups representing the indigenous peoples of the arctic, who are truly impacted more so than anyone else by the decisions of the arctic nations. but i would suggest to you that the biggest challenge for the united states is the united states itself. we face hurdles both at a public interest level and a government policy level. from the public interest perspective, i think it is a fair question to ask why should -- why should somebody from alabama or from arizona care about the arctic? and i suppose there could be those that would say well why should alaskans care about policies that relate to using corn for ethanol or the security of our southwest border.

i would argue back these are all national priorities, national impacts. well, we know we repeat it all the time we are an arctic nation, because of alaska. but every state every state in our union has some kind of a stake in the arctic. whether it is from trade nearly 20% of the u.s. exports go to the seven other arctic nations, that's significant. we have the research activity, the national science foundation has provided arctic research grants to entities based in 44 different states plus the district of columbia. i remember having a conversation with my colleague from iowa some years ago, and it was kind of a trick question to him, about arctic and arctic policy. i was able to remind him that in one of his iowa state

institutions they host an arctic research program there, kind of caught him by surprise. but that's important that they recognize their connection. but there is also the national security matters the arctic touches every corner. the arctic touches every corner of our nation. and we must remind everybody of this. from a security perspective, the arctic is centrally located for multiple areas of operation from the asia pacific and north american to europe and to russia. our ability to reach each area via the arctic significantly reduces response times with increased activity in the arctic in both commercial and military levels, our ability to project power and have rapid response capability in the region is of even greater importance. of course, from an economic

standpoint, we talk about the shipping routes and the advantages of shorter shipping routes between europe and asia or the west coast, with the potential to cut seemingly 12 to 15 days off of transit schedules, allowing for quicker delivery ofs good goods, lower costs to consumers for all americans. so, again a benefit regardless of where you come from in the country. our natural resource potential, we talked about it a lot in alaska. but we recognize that the -- that the resource potential in the arctic is very very high. usgs estimates roughly 412 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalent natural gas lies there in the arctic. the dredge hauls we have seen suggest high concentration of critical and strategic elements like rare earth elements. our neighbors, russia to the west, canada to the east, they

continue with very, very purposeful national plans, combined with state interests to develop arctic resources and really pushing to advance commerce in the north. and their plans are helping to create jobs. we're seeing economic growth in areas that have historically faced extraordinary challenges. even the nonarctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice. i think this is one area that grabs the attention of folks here at home because they're looking at these nonarctic nations and saying, well what interest does india have here? and they should be scratching their heads about that. they should be asking that question. because if there is an interest,

from nonarctic nations why here in this country are we not looking with greater interest? but when you think about the nonarctic nations they're reaping the transit benefits. they are looking to possibly move forward with resource extraction or exploration and development activities. and so when you think about the u.s. position and whether we engage or whether we don't engage we need to appreciate that this level of activity is going to continue whether the united states engages or not. increased access in the arctic also means enhanced scientific opportunities to better understand the region, its environment, its ecosystem, and how the arctic might impact other areas of a nation and the world. we talk about maintaining the arctic as a zone of peace to allow for greater international cooperation and coordination in a harsh environment that requires specialized skill and

equipment. so areas that we can be collaborating and working together are important. so really, regardless of where you live in this country or what your interests may be there is a nexus. there is a connection out there to the arctic that explains why our arctic priorities should matter to the entire country. but our challenge here is enabling this nonalaska portion of the arctic to recognize that nexus. so heather mentioned that senator king and i have joined together. we're kind of book ending the country between alaska and maine. we formed a senate arctic caucus, not only to look at our national arctic policies and priorities, but really to place a greater focus on each individual state and how it is connected to the arctic. we think this is something that

other colleagues can take home and use to highlight our arctic opportunities with individuals and communities. so when we sent letters of invitation to the other members, it was not just let's focus on arctic together, it was accompanied with a white paper that was put together by a great arctic intern i'm going to do a shoutout to kyle who has done great work for us, but reminding the senators from alabama for instance that 25% of alabama's total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. to my colleague john mccain who has joined the arctic caucus because he saw that in his state of arizona 16% of total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. and so, again, making -- making

that connection there so the arctic is not so remote, so far away. now we all recognize the role that admiral pap assumed as the united states special representative for the arctic. i think senator kerry selected an individual who's obviously very knowledgeable about the region and someone who can bring that knowledge to the rest of the country. but he can't do it alone. so how we can work to not only support his role, but ways to develop interest in and greater awareness in the arctic is something that i challenge each of us to do. one suggestion i have this morning and i'll suggest next week in iqaluit is to make

the -- or allow the arctic economic council a greater opportunity for some visibility. take the aic on a road tour. now, we know in this room that the arctic economic council is a forum formed by the arctic council to bring businesses together with arctic communities, to promote greater economic investment. but i think it would be important for the aic to visit throughout the country, go to the different states, go to the city chamber of commerce, promote investment in arctic communities for economic development and at the same time what you're doing is raising the collective knowledge awareness and interest in the arctic. so this suggestion of bringing this to a higher level by

utilizing the aec brings me to the second hurdle that's the federal government's arctic policy goals and agenda for the arctic council chairmanship in the next couple of years. i would suggest the effort at this point in time by our government in terms of where we are in assuming this chairmanship position is incomplete. and heather noted i have been quick to applaud the administration when i think things are moving as they should. but i'm here to offer what i hope is constructive criticism when we have -- we have not yet done what we need to do in these arenas. and i would hope if you get nothing else from my remarks this morning that you will take

away that you will remember the people who live in the arctic. this must be a priority for us as an arctic nation. now, for many who have never seen the arctic many nonarctic residents, they view the arctic as this pristine untouched environment. i described it as something akin to a snow globe that sits on the shelf and it is pretty and it is contained and it always looks the same. and please don't touch it. please don't shake it up. but our arctic is an area that is home to nearly 4 million people. humans have been living and hunting and working there for thousands of years. they have been harvesting the natural resources of the region. they have been developing the land. they live and work and raise

their families there. just yesterday i had an opportunity to see a series of advertisements, the corporation that sits up in the north slope area. stunning commercials about i am a -- and the one that is probably most powerful is a series of pictures of a whaling captain who also happens to be the ceo of this native corporation, moving from shots of him out on the ice looking as traditional and ancient as any inupiat might and the next shot of him in his office looking just like those of you in suits and ties and leather shoes. and it speaks -- it speaks to

the reality of the people of the arctic today. and so we must always remember the people. a focus on climate change, its impact on the arctic and how to adapt to a changing environment is absolutely warranted. i don't have concern with that. but it cannot be our sole and singular focus. and it cannot be held over or held against the people of the arctic. it should not be used as an excuse to prevent those who live in the arctic from developing the resources available to them in order to create a better standard of living. my objection and the objection of many who live in alaska, is that this administration has placed climate change policy goals above everything else including the welfare of those

who live in the arctic. it was just about a month ago, a little over a month ago, we had a hearing before the senate energy and natural resources committee, it was a hearing specific to the arctic, the first one we had in the senate, some members of the committee commented on what they perceived to be the irony of alaska's strong support for oil and gas development, while noting the impact -- the true impact climate changes our states, our communities and our people. they suggested that alaskans should be leaders in moving our country away from fossil fuels. well, one of the witnesses we had at that hearing was charlotte brower, an eskimo, she's the mayor of the borough she's the wife of a whaling captain, she's got six kids. and as the mayor testified oil

development on alaska's north slope brought 200 years worth of economic development and advancement in a period of roughly 30 years. let me repeat that. 200 years worth of advancement in 30 years' time. pretty remarkable. also very challenging. but as a result of responsible resource development, more people on the north slope of alaska now have access to medical clinics that could provide care for themselves, their loved ones. they have improved telecommunications. and search and rescue equipment for hunting parties that previously would have simply disappeared on the ice, never to be heard from again. they have access to other modern amenities that we certainly take for granted, like a simple flush

toilet. so those who oppose resource development, you've got to look at what -- what the situation is for those again who have lived and worked and raised their families in this area for thousands of years. those who would oppose resource development would prefer the inupiat eskimo using whale oil for heat instead of using the resources of the region to advance their quality of life. and the mayor reminded us that it was just a few decades ago where there was no natural gas to heat their home. where truly it was a time when you collected the drift wood that would come down the river for heat, for your home.

there is some pretty powerful stories from some people who are still in leadership positions today who describe that the reason that they wanted to go to school in the morning was not eager for the education necessarily, but because the school was the only place where there was heat. you're from barrow, alaska you're going to go to school. there is no irony in the people in the arctic benefiting from the economic opportunities available in their region. there san irony in deliberating limiting their economic future while claiming now it is for their own good and somehow in their best interests. now, administration officials have said that the united states arctic council agenda found the

sweet spot between national security and environmental goals. what is missing, i believe, from the equation, are the views of those who actually live in the arctic like mayor brower. what is missing are the economic development opportunities that would actually benefit those who live and work and raise their families in the arctic. and a prime example of the disconnect that occurs when policy is being driven from thousands of miles away here in washington, d.c., we saw it play out at an event last september entitled passing the arctic council torch also sponsored by csis but every speaker who came from an arctic location, whether it was from alaska or the uconn territory, the northwest territory, nunavit they praised the development for the people of the north.

all of them spoke about the need for economic opportunities as the plirtriorities for those that live in the arctic. those who came from outside of the arctic, government agencies or universities or elsewhere, they focused their remarks on the need to have a bold aggressive agenda on climate change. what we saw there was, i believe, an intent to use the arctic council as a bully pulpit to promote climate change policy goals as if economic activity in the arctic is driving climate change. the contrast was pretty significant. at least for those of us from the arctic here. arctic policy is a difficult balance to achieve as the vision in the arctic varies, depending on who you speak with. but, we must find a better place if the u.s. chairmanship of the

arctic council is going to be viewed as a net positive here. the obama administration will be this charge as we assume the chair of the arctic council next week. but it will not be this administration that then hands the gavel to finland in 2017. we will have a new administration. and given -- given what is coming up and these presidential elections, we're going to see new administration new cabinet and potentially different priorities for the arctic. but, really the only way to have a lasting arctic policy, a policy that goes beyond just the two-year period that we have in front of us, we have to institutionalize this. we have to -- we have to make it a policy that is supported

across the aisle and supported across the nation. that's what will make it enduring. and so i am challenging not only this administration, but i'm challenging people around the country. let's view this opportunity to chair the arctic council, to lead on a vision for the arctic that is enduring and it is truly for the benefit of all in this country. those who recognize that we are an arctic nation, and those who are just beginning to discover the excitement and the opportunity that we hold as an arctic nation. with that i thank you for the opportunity to be with you. i look forward to some questions in a bit.

[ applause ] >> over here? thank you. >> perfect. >> senator murkowski thank you so much. that was wonderful address. and i love that national prioritization. as we heard make the arctic council a national imperative. i want to give you a warmup, ask you one or two questions that are on my mind and as i look across this room, there is so much incredible arctic experience, knowledge, expertise, i'll unleash the audience on you for the remaining minutes that we have with you. my first question deals with u.s. preparedness for arctic development. so earlier this week i believe the comment out of the coast guard had made a statement that the united states is a -- is a bystander in the arctic. you and representative don young had really tough hearings with coast guard officials saying where is the plan, where is the

readiness? i think there has been discussion of you and legislation on infrastructure, some infrastructure legislation. it is not just icebreakers which we tend to fixate on but deep water ports, aviation assets it maritime domain awareness. even if we, the united states, decides not to develop others are, will have increased shipping, will have increased human activity. what is your sense of where the -- where we need to be and the budget? that's the hard part. how are we going to pay for this? >> well i have expressed concerns and i will continue to express concerns about our readiness. now, i don't fault the coast guard. the coast guard gets it. they know that we are lacking in deep water ports. they know that we have not sufficiently charted our arctic waters. they know that we need more navigational aids. they know that the communication

gaps that exist up there must be addressed. and i think that they are internally -- they're quite concerned because they know where their budget is. we talk about an icebreaker. if coast guard were to take that out of their budget they would have literally nothing for anything else. so when we look at the infrastructure and the infrastructure needs in the arctic, this is not just the responsibility of the coast guard who is tasked with ensuring that the safety in our arctic areas. this is, again a national priority. this needs to involve multiagencies. it needs to involve everybody within the department of defense. it needs to involve the agencies within the department of interior. it needs to involve homeland security obviously but again,

we have got to kind of get out of this little silo that the arctic is your responsibility. part of what we have been dealing with to this point in time is this mind set that anything that has to do with the arctic is an alaskan earmark. it is not going to happen if it is viewed that way. alaskans don't view it that way. and neither should anyone else in the country. and certainly not those in the administration. so i have been pressing cabinet members, when they come before the committees whether it is my appropriations subcommittee that i'm on, or energy or wherever, where, in this budget, are we demonstrating that there is a priority? because all of the agencies have been tasked to come up with your strategic plan. they probably spent more money coming up with strategic plans that go sit on a shelf than

coming together to collaborate in defining how we're going to accomplish these things. we have known for years now that we were going to be assuming the chair next week. putting together strategic plan is one thing. but making sure that we have demonstrated that priority by placing it within the budget, initiatives within the budget that's where you demonstrate your commitment. and we haven't seen that yet. >> so we hosted dr. john holdron here in january, early february, to talk about the creation of the new -- the executive order that the white house released on creating this arctic executive steering committee which he chairs. and i asked a very similar question, where is the budget? lots of strategies, but in the small print, each agency has to use within its existing re sources, which means -- >> take it from a pot that

you're already struggling to address the needs within your department. so tell me who is going to say okay, we're going to put all these other things all these other responsible tiz we had and we'll move the arctic to the top. >> you think this new steering group, the deputy cabinet level, subcabinet level, do you think that could provide that rigor to say, you know what, omb, we're going to fund this or you're in a wait and see mood. >> i'm from missouris my on this s myon this one, show me. don't tell alaskans i said i'm from missouri. let's move out to the geopolitical, geostrategic environment. this week we heard from nordic ministers that characterized russia as the greatest threat to europe's security, particularly northern europe security. at the same time -- >> we heard that from some of our own military leaders as well. >> general hodges others.

at the same time we had the senior state department official that is very engaged on the arctic saying russia is a partner. i am struggling with the concept of partner, yet i'm seeing extraordinary aggressive actions, missing civilian airliners, a lot of military exercises in the arctic. i'm getting repeated calls. maybe you can help me how you answer this question by reporters saying is this a new cold war, what are we seeing, what do we understand? i'm growing ip crease inging increasingly concerned. the foreign minister will not be at the iqaluit ministerial. they're sending a natural resources and environment minister. what signals is moscow sending us right now on the arctic? >> well, i, for one, perhaps take the signal of aircraft in

areas that are unexpected and unwelcomed and very aggressive. i take that as a pretty strong signal that causes me great concern. there is a -- there is a pushing of the envelope here with russia. that if it is not getting the attention of our leadership here in this country, i'm not quite sure what else we need to do. now, you heard me say today and as i go around the country, that the arctic should be this zone of peace. i absolutely believe that, adhere to it but i also recognize that within a zone of peace, there is respect that you show for one another. and what we are seeing right now is a -- an aggression in a way that, you know we're not --

we're not going to make the front page of the news but we're certainly on a-2 with the aggressive behavior that we're seeing out of russia right now, and it causes me to wonder if they are not taking advantage of the fact that we have said we want to be your friend. we want to be your partner in all of this. if you want to be a partner, then you behave like one. and you show that level of respect. and that's what we're not seeing right now. so i think that we need to ensure that our signals are equally strong. and we say that's not acceptable. it's not acceptable. and as much as we want to be working together, we want to collaborate on scientific opportunities, we want to

clinton rate in area collaborate on areas of the environment, let's not say one thing on the one hand and then our actions take us in a different direction. we need to call russia out when russia needs to be called out. >> very strong message. all right, i know the audience is waiting. we don't have that much time. i would like to collect a few questions if i may and ask our audience to keep them short. if you can introduce yourself we'll be good. brooks sometimes speak very directly into that microphone, so thank you, please. >> senator brooks yeager with wwf and the state department and interior with bruce babbitt. i wanted to compliment you. first of all, and ask one question. i come from the conservation side of the debate, probably, afar as that goes. on the other hand, i spent a lot of time unnorth and agree with 90% of what you said about the benefits that oil

development has provided to towns like barrow and wainwright and the need that they have of continued money to enter into the commercial world economy and be part of something while protecting their subsist ens and traditional ways of life. so grant -- and i wanted to congratulate you also on talking about the reamountlities of the budget. having been in government it is time for conferences where the agencies come forward and say pretty things to end and for omb to be at the table saying how much money they're going to pony up for what is a white house priority. it is or it isn't. you can't just add it on top of the debt that the agency is already struggling with. that won't work. i agree with you entirely. question is the following. the thrust of your remarks and substance is there is the debate between those who are concerned

mostly with climate change and with the natural resource health of the arctic and those concerned with the development of the people of the arctic. i wonder if it there isn't a space somewhere in between where one can be concerned with both. specifically that development can occur in some places and not in others and in a discriminating way rather than an overwhelming way. then the question is, if you're mostly concerned about the human development of the arctic communities, how do you make sure that the money from development doesn't shoot straight to houston? and actually some of it stays in the arctic? it is nice to benefit from royalties. that's in the enough honestly. how about jobs for the people up there. what do you do -- what is your program about that? >> thank you. i think i saw -- we have caitlin right there.

>> caitlin rule of law committee for the ocean. i don't have a -- the arctic nations, russia by far has the most integrated development plan. they have gone through their budgets for different sec electoral plans, pulled out the arctic onces and created an ark arctic commission. is that something we should be trying to work with on economic development -- building a regional arctic economic growth. if we don't do it, i assume some of the port production -- port operation facilities in southeast asia will be in there, so it is not something we can stop by not participating, but it seems like that region is an area that could be separated from the normal moscow/washington tensions we had forever. and have something that focuses more on the back channel for

building a partnership in that region of the arctic where we want to see reasonable economic development. the russians want to see economic development and reasonable environmental protection. seems like there is an opportunity to work together there. in spite of the strategic issues that have gone on even after the cold war. do you think there san opportunity to build that regional partnership between alaska and the russian far east in spite of the tensions that we have in our more strategic level dialogue? >> we'll take one more. right there, right beside you and we'll let you tv-- >> you'll remember all the questions. >> i'll do my best. >> following up on mr. yeager's question about where the money is going to come from to address these challenges would public private partnerships be an option to consider and how would they be developed? >> wonderful.

okay, so we had that -- getting the revenues in, and where is the money and how to keep the administration focused on that budget, russia, how to find the opportunities. alaska has done extraordinary work on the collaboration and resources and where do they go? >> let me speak to brooks' question first. it is a key one. we want to ensure that the benefits of development flow to the people that are in the arctic. and i mentioned in my comments the benefit that the -- that barrow that nuxit that wainwright have seen with the value of natural gas coming to their community. now, that was a very direct agreement between the producers and the people of those native

villages that resource would be made available to you, to them. that was transformative. you talk to the people in barrow, that was transforeign minister tiff. you know. you've been there. one of the things i believe very strongly we must incorporate is our ability for increased revenue sharing. i have a revenue sharing measure that directs a portion of the revenues derived from offshore development, for instance, directly to the governmental structures within the north slope that would receive -- that would host the development but also then return benefit directly to them. i think that has to be a significant and a key piece in ensuring that they receive that financial benefit. you speak very clearly to the

reality of the people of the north. they want to ensure that they can be a participant in the cash economy. they want to ensure that they have certain that they have certain amenities whether it's clean water, sewers or our level of energy coming to them but they also want and require that access to the sub subsistance lifestyle that sustained them for life immemorial, how we ensure that there is a level of development that allows for that benefit, but still provides for a level of management of those resources. this has got to be key, and you suggest that they're -- perhaps there are certain areas that would not be subject to development. i think, in fact that there has

been that discussion and that there is that direction that when the caribou are migrating or when the bowhead are coming up with shell's exploration plan, for instance, they are out of the water when the bowhead are migrating to allow for the whale, captains and their crews to be out and have a successful hunt. that's -- it's pretty serious the accommodations that go on to provide for that level of sub cystance and that must be key. to caitlin's comment about about economic cooperation with russia. i do think there are opportunities where we can be working together whether it's search and rescue capacity or --

i don't know if i want to describe them as a commercial hub, but servicing point if you will, and having the opportunity to build on -- on the strength that russia will put in place or that we can partner with. i don't think that we should assume that if russia moves forward that we don't have to and this notion -- that we can sit back and everyone engages and that somehow would reap those benefits. i don't know if that is realistic. while i express my skepticism with what we're seeing with russia right now i do recognize that we have built relationships. we certainly have between alaska and the russians directly as the

neighbor there. we can build on it but i am also very cautious in recognizing that the political tensions that we are experiencing with russia right now perhaps erode a little bit of the desire for greater reliance and cooperation. i am very cognizant of this. i would like to see a greater collaborative effort, but i think we know whether it's from a research perspective and all of the other arctic nations have been very willing to work with us and russia has been perhaps a little more closed about sharing their data. so we can talk about cooperation, but again it's got to be a two-way street here.

>> how does that go back? >> well, i do believe that this is so much a part of our answer is private public pirps and last year in the omni bus. no, it was in the word a built, we advanced a measure that would allow for not necessarily public private, but utilizing our state institutions and in the state of alaska we have the ada the alaska industrial development authority that would allow for partnerships that could help build out whether it is a deep water port or other infrastructure there that i think is an important step we did not advance the public private partnership concept because there were some that

were a little anxious about what happens if you have an oil company that would come in and want to do that private partnership. i'm looking at it and saying if we are building out an infrastructure project that is going to benefit the region, let's talk about this so i think this is an opportunity for us particularly as we face the reality of budgets that do not allow the for the level of commitment to the arctic region that i think we need to address. so i think that that is a positive avenue to explore and i think that we should be doing more in that area. >> senator murkowski, thank you so much. this was so timely. we wish you very safe travels next week as part of the delegation. we look forward to seeing the

outcome of the canadian chairmanship and the arctic economic council which is a major deliverable to the chairmanship and then the torch is passed to us and we look forward to the hearings and the leadership and guidance that you will provide. please join me in thanking senator murkowski for being with us. [ applause ] >> thank you. [ applause ] because we have more to come just one quick, please go out, refresh your coffee. we'll do a little scene change up here and we have an incredible conversation about the study on. >> can i have one final plug in before people stand? >> sure. please. >> because you can see, i get very energized and animated about the arctic opportunities, but what i am finding exciting is what is happening with young people and their interest in the arctic. in my -- in my senate office the

enthusiasm for these issues is almost infectious, and what i have seen i've got a couple of young people in the audience today. >> wonderful. >> who have gone off to law school to focus specifically on the arctic. i've got one who is a student at georgetown who has been helping me in his spare time because he's so focused on the arctic, and i really do feel that when our young people view this as their future they're going to drag the rest of us along. so to the young people out there who are aiming high, aiming north, thank you for your enthusiasm because this is what's going to make the difference. >> that's a better way to end the conversation. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> thanks, heather.

>> this is the center for strategic and international studies. they're hosting a forum discussing the arctic ahead of the u.s. beginning to chair the arctic council. the arctic council is a group that sets policy for the region. eight countries are includinged the united states, canada, denmark, norway russia and sweden. they heard from alaska senator lisa murkowski. you can see her remarks online at c-span.org and getting under way shortly a discussion on the future of energy development on the american arctic. that will be coming up live shortly on c-span3.

as we wait for this discussion to get under way which should get under way shortly at the center for strategic and international studies, a look at comments from yesterday from ban ki-moon at the national press club. >> just to mention several cases, but what i am going to

say is not all, but they are some of very serious situations. let us think about syria. this is the fifth year where syrian people have been abandoned, killed and displaced and refugeed. meanwhile, the parties continue to show little or almost no willingness to solve this through dialogue. this is why i have asked my special envoy to do maximum efforts to relaunch a political dialogue as a way to implement geneva communique. if anyone is truly serious about engaging in meaningful negotiations to end this nightmare he has to work on this

matter. i would like to make a special plea on behalf of palestinians in the refugee camps in damascus. they are caught between the military machine of the syrian government and the brutality of extremist group did earn and isis. they have a little way out and they can find a little way in and this offering is largely out of the spotlight. i have been working very hard to protect all these 18,000 people who have been trapped in between. government forces and terrorists. at least 3,500 children who need our immediate protection. yemen is also in flames ladies

and gentlemen we have -- who is taking care of all of this human humanitarian -- welcome. even before the latest escalations two out of three yemenis relied on humanitarian assistance. levels of security were highest than in the poorest stretches of africa. the recent fighting has only mrult multi multiplied, unicef has reported on an astounding and one-third of the fighters are children. that's why i'm calling for an immediate cease-fire in yemen by all the parties.

it is time to support creators of life-saving aid and the passage to peace. [ applause ] the saudis have assured me that they understand that there must be a political process. i call on all yemenis to participate in good faith. the united nations support the diplomatic process remains the best way out of a drawn-out war with terrifying implications with regional stability. in nigeria, our hope is that the new government can promote return to normalcy and the return from the schoolchildren who have been kidnapped and mistreated during the last one

year. in south sudan, more than 15,000 people are within the united nations camp. united nations camp have never been designed to accommodate that many refugees but the situation is very fragile. i welcome the welcome by p5+1 and iran, for the nuclear program and remove sanctions. once a comprehensive agreement is finalized by the end of june the united nations will do our best to help implementation process including through monetary verification by the international atomic energy agency, iaea.

this breakthrough can also create space for efforts to address the many other challenges in the region. we have all been horrified by the terrorist attacks and violence committed by groups such as the da'esh and al shabaab and boko haram and others. your colleagues in the media have been among the victims, and i continue to stress a need for journalists to have the secret that they need for a vital walk. ♪ ♪ [ applause ] the united nations is working to present a comprehensive plan of action to address this extremism, the violent extremism and terrorism. i am going to summit it to the

general assembly at this year. at the united nation, i, together with the president of the a embley will convene a high-level debate on the reconciliation and tolerance, how we can address this violent extremism by leveling up enhancing and mutual respect and the reconciliation. all of these are very important issues without addressing these issues we will not have sustainable peace and sustainable development of our society. we are working very closely with the lands of civilizations and i have invited many world renowned religious leaders. i believe there are very

important roles to be played by religious leaders and educators to teach their followers and their students what is the correct meaning of mutual respect and reconciliations and harmonious living together and these are very important issues and that's why as i said i am going to present a comprehensive plan of action by this year. we must ensure that the counterterrorism efforts respect human rights and international humanitarian law. as we have seen time and again, overreaction is the extremist -- >> a discussion very much in keeping with senator murkowski's conversation about the need for economic growth and the importance of energy and resource development and we are going turn to a panel that i will tell you a secret all four

of us on this panel have one thing in common but i know one thing we have in common and that is we all participated in the national petroleum council research study. i was just a supporting cast member on the subcommittee and the co-captains of the subcommittee are carol lloyd and paula grant from the department of energy. so what i will do is introduce the wonderful power panel and to talk a little bit about the study which was released on march 27th and i know carol has done the study and you may have never heard about it and we wanted to share with you this study and more importantly talk about a broader array and maybe

go beyond the study and before i do that let me introduce the wonderful and distinguished panel and dr. paula grant is the deputy assistant secretary for oil and natural gas and the department of energy's office of fossil energy where she administers both domestic and international oil and gas programs. she previously worked at the american gas association at duke energy and she has a very impressive academic background. we have miss carol lloyd who is the engineering vice president at exxon mobil's upstream research company. she also has a long, distinguished career with the engineering manager at exxon oil and imperial oil and she is the smartest person on technology i

have ever met. so if you have some real technical, write to her. write to her and finally to my right we have ms. drew pierce son year policy adviser for the environment and natural resources and government affairs group. drew is an ashgslaskan and she has been secretary of interior on a range of issues specifically with alaska affairs and she was appointed by the george w. bush's office coordinator in the office of the federal coordinator for alaska national gas transportation projects. that's a title. that's a mouthful but drew is a legislator. she served for 17 years in the alaskan state legislature and she will help us in a very powerful perspective from the state of alaska. so we have some great slides. each of the panelists have a short presentation and we will begin with paula from the department of energy's

perspective turn to darryl for the industry perspective and drew's going to do cleanup and then we'll ask questions and welcome you into it so with that again, thank you, paula the floor is yours. >> thanks, heather. it's a pleasure to be here today and thanks everyone for coming in from this beautiful spring day. i'm very pleased to see that spring has finally arrived in d.c. i think it was warmer in alaska when we were in juneau than it was in d.c. so it's a funny world. we are really thrilled to have the opportunity to talk about the arctic and alaska and our oil and gas resources here today. it's a very important moment in our history as we think about the arctic and we'll share a little bit of the administration's perspective and sort of where our head is right now on the arctic. i think many of you know because you're in the room here focused on the arctic that the president has set a national imperative

for the u.s. to take a leadership role in ensuring stewardship of the arctic as set out in the national strategy for the arctic a couple of years ago and the following implementation plan. our leadership and our presence in the region would be vital over the coming decade to ensuring continued u.s. leadership and in setting standards of behavior and norms of behavior and activity in the region and the -- as the climate changes and cs as begin to be less prevalent in some areas we're seeing an increased amount of activity in the arctic and from a commercial perspective and the significant increase in shipping activity are from a military perspective with demonstrations of activity on other parts as well as an increased presence in other countries looking at

opportunities even if they aren't arctic nations in the regions so there is tremendous opportunity for the united states to lead as this activity increases and it's within this context that the secretary in 2013 that the national petroleum council conduct a study looking at what is the nature of the oil and gas resource in the arctic and what are the technologies and practices available and are needed to ensure that those resources are developed in a prudent manner and prudent encompasses as carol will talk through the results of the research work. prudent encompasses the idea that the resources are valuable and that developing them has national and energy you are skooity benefits and also these resources must be developed in a manner that minimizes the negative impacts on other natural resources like our air

and our land and our water as well as taking into account the benefits that can be accrued to local communities that can contribute to the resource development. so it's -- that is the question or the request that the secretary made of the national petroleum council. carol, in a bit, is going to walk you through how the mpc responded to that request. i want to talk just for a couple of minutes and heather has admonished me to be brief. there's so much to talk about in this area that the secretary was very pleased to receive the results of the study as heather mentioned at the end of march and it's very timely, as many of you know the u.s. will assume the chairmanship of the arctic council in the next couple of weeks, actually, and we have an opportunity to work through our

leadership of that council to ensure not only leadership in stewardship of the arctic environment, but also to find ways to enhance international cooperation and through the arctic council we have demonstrated an ability to the cooperate internationally on science and technology and that really forms the core of the secretary's request. it's a question about what the science and technologies needed to ensure the prudent development of oil and gas resources and in particular what could the department of energy do to further advance science and technology. one of the key aspects of the recommendations that you'll hear about today is a recognition that in order to develop and realize the promise of oil and gas resources in the alaskan arctic that it will be vital to secure the public confidence that those resources can be

developed in a responsible manner. in order to ensure that public confidence we're going to have to make sure that we are conducting science in demonstrating technologies in transparent manners. so that means in some sort of public manner whether it's through the work of the national labs. we have the work of national labs across the country that are part of the department of energy. whether it's through public, private partnerships and many of which are referenced and surveyed in the study or through academic work, but in order for policymakers to rely on science and technology demonstration in policy making, that work is going to have to be done in a transparent manner that the public can have confidence in. i think you will see quite a few of the recommendations in the study have that in mind and we very much look forward in identifying ways that the department of energy can be part of that continued resource and that demonstration. the -- many will ask why the

arctic, why now outside of this leadership imperative when we have such a tremendous abundance of domestic oil and gas in the lower 48 and the simple answer to that question is that we make -- we should be making decisions at a policy level that have our children in mind. the office that i have the pleasure and the privilege of managing right now the initial work was done in the marcellus in 1978 and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and the office spent about $130 million much of it in partnership with george mitchell and as many of you know, perfected it and demonstrated in the barnet and north texas, and that knowledge has been applied to a very prolific resource that is found

in oil and has generated an incredible abundance of domestic supply. the reason that we need to be thinking about the arctic now is because it will take us a good decade of exploration in proving up this resource to get into the place where we are at a significant level of commercial production. so the work we did in 19678 to provide for the domestic supplies that we have now that's where we need to be in the arctic and this is about the children in securing that energy security and that's the why now and the arctic. and i encourage you all to take a look at the report that carol's going to share here in a bit. i think it's a very valuable contribution to our understanding of the oil and gas resource as well as the environment in which it will be developed and how we ensure it's done in eye prudent manner. thank you for being here today. >> thank you so much. i don't mean to be such an ogre as far as time and short presentations and lots of

questions are always the best. carol, over to you. walk us through the highlights of the petroleum council's work. good morning and thank you so very much for the invitation to be here to talk about the arctic and to talk about the national petroleum council study. i would offer for you three key takeaways that i'm going to focus on in the next five to seven minutes and then i would be pleased to take your questions. the first takeaway is the very collaborate collaborative process that was mentioned. paula mentioned it briefly. it may be tempting because of the way the organization under which this study was done to dismiss it as an industry position piece and an advocacy document. it is not that, and i hope to demonstrate that to you directly in the next few moments. the second key take away is that the u.s. arctic potential is sig

nif siggive in kant material in the future as paula so ably articulated to you in her comments about the children and the technology to access to explore for and develop that u.s. offshore arctic potential exists today based on technology that's been developed and proven in other jurisdictions and then finally the key take away is what happens next and i'll close with some of the more important recommendations in the report from a technical perspective, and i'm happy to wear the cloak that heather has given me on the technical guru on the panel and i'll focus on those and then leave drew pierce to talk about some of the other aspects that we discussed with the arctic council and our thoughts on the most appropriate actions to undertake as the u.s. transfers

and assume the chairmanship of the arctic council. with that i'll make a couple of comments with regard to the team that we assembled and the collaborative process. in the slide, you can see you have 266 participants from over 105 organizations. 43% of% are from the oil and gas industry and 30% from the federal government and here in washington and also the state of alaska and government representatives and 12% from academic institutions not surprising given the research and technology. we saw the need to reach out to those institutions that were directly involved in research in the arctic and ice and logistics and topics which were relevant to our report. the remainder -- the remaining 15% roughly split between alaska native representation, consultants, think tanks and the

environmental community. we met we received the secretary's request. a study committee was formed and we developed a work plan that looks kind of like the one shown on the righthand side and tested that with the secretary of energy before we undertook our work. the result itself is split into three parts and the first part is prudent development and that includes a global perspective and global resource potential including the u.s. onshore offshore with the focus on conventional gas and it includes interesting facts with regard to the oil industry's long history of experience in arctic and arcticlike conditions and it includes policy, history in the u.s. and it compares and contrasts u.s. arctic policy with other nations. we describe at a high level what

exploration in the arctic might take and what some of the challenges and opportunities might be other than technology. that's part one. part two and three are the majority of the report. it's 550-plus page report and those are the research and technology sections. there is an engineering section that includes four chapters, with the exploration and development technology and the logistics and the very important topic of oil spill response and then the environmental section includes ecology and the human environment. these two teams assess the current state of technology and the current state of ongoing research assessed gaps and selected opportunities for the current administration and the department of energy to pursue. those opportunities were prioritized and the most important ones highlighted in the executive summary for consideration. a very, very collaborative report. a broad and deep team that came

together to have conversations first, do analysis and then come to conclusions. we worked for more than a year. we did not start putting pen to paper on recommendations until the last two months of this study. the next topic is that i wanted you to take away is that the u.s. arctic potential is significant and the technology exists to explore for and develop it safely today and i'll develop that further in the next five minutes or so. there are seven key findings in the report, in the executive summary. you can see them listed and summarized on this page and the order is important. it was -- this is first and foremost, a technical report and the order follows a logical, technical order. in finding one we describe the size of the oil and gas resource potential and i'll tell you more about that in a subsequent

slide. in finding two we explore the arctic ecological, physical and human environment which we found was well understood after decades of research from many different institutions and organizations. in finding three, we explore the oil and gas industry's long history of successful operations in the arctic which has been enabled by continuing technology advances. more than a century of experience that starts with the very cold-water development in norman wells in canada and then moves forward to the cook inlet in the u.s. exploration programs in the u.s. and canadian seas in the 70s and 80s and moves into the development rain beginning in the rough 1990s through to the pressent day. in finding four perhaps the most important in the study or one of the most important most of the u.s. arctic conventional oil and gas potential can be developed using existed field proven technology. of course, we recognize the

technical know how is not enough in order to move forward the development must be economically viable as we discussed in finding five and we must also have public confidence that the opportunity can be pursued in a prudent manner as paula described earlier and as we describe in the report in finding six. we recognize that we're not there in the u.s. with the public confidence. we note in the report the shared responsibility between the oil and gas industry and the government in securing and maintaining this public confidence and then finally in finding seven we outline the substantial recent technology improvements in the area of oil spill prevention and oil spill response in ice. those technology improvements have not yet been fully accepted in the u.s. which opens up the opportunity for collaborative research in the public forum as paula discussed and we see those in the recommendations which i'll show to you shortly. briefly, on resource potential,

we use the u.s. geological surveys assessment and in the pie chart on the left you see the assessment and the global potential and global endowment in the arctic is 923 million barrels of oil potential and as we move to the 4:00 position we see roughly one-third is in produced and reserves entirely in u.s. and russia. the 4:00 position starts the discovered and not yet developed and there are no development plans in the books for those resources and about 100 billion barrels and the majority look at that 51% or 426 billion barrels of undiscovered potential in the global arctic. the global arctic contains the world's largest accumulation of oil and gas hydrocarbons. so splitting that potential, that global potential by country

is shown on the right. you can see by inspection that russia is by far the largest holder of that global potential, but look who is second. it's none other than the u.s. focusing on the oil potential we see the oil potential in russia and the u.s. is roughly equivalent and the u.s. has more oil potential than either canada or greenland other than norway. so this illustrates the significant resource potential in the global arctic and then in the u.s. we discuss in the report why to pursue the arctic now and paula covered that point. in the third bullet on the slide we talk about the national security and economic benefits associated with oil and gas development in the north and for those of you that were here this morning to hear senator murkowski's remarks on the economic benefit of oil and gas development to local alaskans i

don't think i can say it any better than she did, but for those of you that like numbers there's quite a lot of discussion in the report about the potential economic implications of an offshore development. i would encourage you to take a look at that. this particular display is -- illustrates the variability in arctic ice conditions around the world. there is not one arctic. in the first two columns in this table we describe arctic environment. by environment we describe of ice depth and water depth. in the first column you have a word description and in the second column we have the examples around the world where that environment is found. the third column is the technology implications on oil and gas development. you can think of these as technology tiers. tier one being the first rough and roughly the easiest although easiest is a relative term in an area as remote as the arctic and tier 5 being the most difficult

from a technology perspective. you will note immediately that there are pictures in tiers 1, 2 and 3 and no pictures in tier 4 and 5 and that's because tiers 4 and 5 have not yet been proven not yet i always say. i'm in the research business and that's what we're working on now. the other item i would point out to you is the red text illustrates where the u.s. potential is located and the majority of the u.s. potential, 90 90% of undiscovered potential is assessed to be in the buford in less than 100 meters of water depth and you can see the photos in tier 3 you can see exploration technology which was demonstrated in the '70s in the canadian and u.s. bofer seas and they were in the 2000s and in the '90s and 2000s and finally

with well control and technology improvements, there's been significant improvement post the macondo tragedy and also by the regulators. this particular display we call the bow tie for obvious reasons. at the center of the bow is a loss of containment event and on the left hand side are all of the prevention technologies available to eliminate and reduce the risk of a well containment event occurring in the first place and usually these topics oil spill prevention and oil spill response are separated and the prevention side is the engineering domain and the response side tends to be an environmental domain. in our report we brought those together because it's the industries objective and the objective of stakeholders to prevent them from taking place in the first place. i'll direct your attention to the picture of the sea bed emergency shut-in device. these are the new technologies

that i mentioned that have been recently developed and we see the need for additional collaborative research to validate these technologies which the industry views as proven and adopt them for full use in the u.s. finally, with regard to what comes next, i've highlighted as promised on this chart the key recommendations coming out of the report the key technical recommendations. we have grouped the recommendations into three teams, environmental stewardship, economic viability and government leadership and policy coordination. these themes are the three pillars, if you will of what's necessary to move forward with the development. the first two listed are in the environmental stewardship theme and the first is that industry and regulators should work together to analyze these new technologies for well control. the second speaks to oil spill

response in ice and there is an industry collaborative research project that's been under way since 2012 that has been evaluating response technologies developed in temperate climates to see how they will perform in the arctic and we recommend that government agencies form that collaborative and there are eight international companies participating. in the area of economic viability we make two recommendations and the first is around extending the drilling season. the picture at the left illustrates the challenge currently the exploration drilling season is conducted in the winter or in the summer excuse me, when the water is open and ice-free. that's about 110 days. however, the current practice is to restrict the back end of that season from exploration drilling to reserve it for same-season relief well and that reduces the season to 79 days and in order

to drill the exploration well you need about 80 days to progress it if you have a dry hole. if you have a test to do you need the current time. what it's requiring is two mobilizations for every single exploration well. what's possible with validating some of these technologies that i'm talking about that have been used and demonstrated in other jurisdictions and in the '70s and '80s in the u.s. is to double that season so it would make it possible to drill in a single season with a single mobilization cutting the cost of drilling almost in half and significantly reducing the risk. the second economic issue is lease terms and you can see from the picture that the u.s. is different from other nations in terms of the lease construct being a development-based system which requires more drilling in the primary lease term to secure lease for development. other nations have recognized this challenge. it's very difficult to progress the number of exploration wells

noted when you can only work two to three months out of the season during the summer months and they've recognized this and they break the lease into a couple of bites and the next bite is an exploration lease where if you have the discovery, you go into the process of converting discovery license and then you're allowed more time with which to advance the development and these are key technical recommendations in the report and i would be pleased and look forward to your questions. thank you very much. hether? >> we have copies of the report and really tremendous amounts of information is in there and i encourage you to take it home and read it. may i turn to -- >> you have the keyboard ma'am. thank you, our fancy technology is passing down the row. all right, ms. pierce the floor is yours. i just have to figure it out.

great. thank you very much. thank you to csis and thank you to all of you for being here today today. i'm going to talk about three things very briefly and the arctic research study and the alaskan's perspective which i bring to the table. paula made the comment that it's important that any movements forward in the arctic have it is public's confidence but what we alaskans brought to the table was for this study for it to have credence in alaska it had to have alaskan's confidence and so lots of alaskans got to take part and i was very pleased with the outcome. i'm going to talk briefly about one of the recommendations related to the arctic council and the u.s. chairmanship, and i am going to talk about the arctic economic council which you heard the senator speak about earlier. so the senator sold you to

remember those 4 million people who live in the arctic and i was honored to serve on the coordinating subcommittee not only with heather and many people here in the room but also with dozens of alaskans who worked on the coordinating sub committee and also on the different chapter teams. they brought their passion to the table. henry huntington of pugh, doctor and commissioner meyers and his staff now at alaska dnr, many many scientists at the university of alaska, particularly in fairbank, but also throughout the state and we had a work shop in fairbanks where we brought in native leaders. we had tribal leaders and we had local government leaders and we had a corporation and sea leaders and we had whalers and subsistence users and the person who made sure that we kept on the right track and remembered those people who live in the arctic each time we met was my

friend richard glenn and just to give you an idea of all of the different hats that the people, that those 4 million people who live in the arctic not everyone wears these hats, but richard is the executive vice president for lands and minerals and arctic slope regional corporation and one of the largest of the encs and he's a geologist, he's a father and whaling crew co-captain and he's an eskimo dancer and a rock 'n' roll keyboardist and he's a member of the study coordinating subcommittee and he spoke to us a lot, but he talked a lot about balance, and so i put a quote here and i am going to frommed to read it to you. he said the study was all about balance and balance about conservation and resource development and balance between knowledge and western science and engineering. the arctic is our home. we aren't going anywhere. he talked to us many times as

did some of the elders about the fact that the upic have been adapting to changing climates to changing migratory patterns and to the infusion of new culture and technology for thousands of years. they haven't left and they're not going to leave. another quote if development comes, we want to share in the benefits while working to mitigate any negative impacts. do we get passionate about it? you bet we do and all of the alaskans who are at the table whether working at one of the chapters or at the work shop or at the coordinating subcommittee brought their passion to the table. we brought it back home to alaska time and time again and we insisted upon a focus on traditional knowledge. we insisted upon a focus on the benefits for alaska and i have to say the ladies to my left were extremely patient with all of the alaskans. so there is a recommendation in

the executive summary in this study. the secretary asked in his letter about d.o.e.'s role chairmanship. and so when the government leadership and recommendations there is a recommendation, and this is it. the u.s. government should seek to strengthen the arctic economic council's formal interaction engagement with the arctic council as well as to promote the business advisory role. you heard the senator speak about the arctic economic council this morning, but a lot of people still aren't that familiar. so it was created at the direction of the administers during the canadian chairmanship and under the leadership of the canadian chair of the arctic council. she represents the first time that a first time participant

and inuit has been chair. the inaugural meeting was september of last year in that place we don't all know how to pronounce, but they have a lot of meetings. the purpose is to facility business-to-business activities and responsible economic development. there are 42 voting members. that means there are three from each member nation, and three from each from the arctic counsel permanent participant indigenous organizations of which there are six. there's a four-member executive committee, and that will always include at least one permanent participant. this is the first time in an international body like this that was developed certainly around the arctic council that the permanent participants are fully at the table with a vote. alaska is lucky and the united states, but particularly alaska is lucky because we have three business representatives who are

from alaska. representing all alaskans. but we also have permanent participant representatives. one from the inuit. and so the u.s. alaska, has eight of the 42 voting members, and that's the largest single delegation. on tuesday the state department held a virtual outreach form, and a new slide show about what the agenda is, and asked for questions, and certainly the state department wants the input. but i just want to note that under economic development the first bullet is harness the expertise and resources of the economic council to inform the

council's work to improve economic and living conditions in the region. now i actually have some insider knowledge. i have reason to believe when the group gets to ottawa next thursday, where they're having their second face-to-face meeting that they will choose to adopt a rotating chairmanship, just like the arctic council has. i also have reason to believe that the u.s. will be the second chair after canada. the chair at the moment of the new arctic economic council. and i also have reason to believe that tara sweeney, who is the business rep for the inuit circumpolar conference of alaska, who sits on the executive committee presently will be the chair during the u.s. chairmanship.

the alaskans have meant monthly. they talk about what they hope that they can bring forward to the larger arctic economic council. but they're bringing a number of proposed themes to the table next week, and i suspect because these fit so closely into the terms of reference for the arctic economic council itself that these will be adopted. so the overreaching themes for the next two years, encouraging publish/private partnerships predicting stable frameworks, facilitating knowledge and data exchange between industry and academia, establishing strong market connections between arctic states, and traditional indigenous knowledge, stewardship, and a focus on small businesses and indeed on indigenous owned businesses. the senator you heard say, she wants the aec to go on the road. i believe that certainly the alaskan members, the eight of

them, will be very willing to do so here in the united states. just so you know, the aec alaska folks bring the same passion to the table that we had at the -- during the study. so we will be very well represented. thank you. >> traung sohank you so much, and let me tell you we always encourage insider information. so thank you for that. that's terrific and that really highlights what we're going to anticipate next week. just taking the moderator's prerogative for a moment, just sort of my very brief reflections in being part of this incredible process. my coconspirator i'm sure he's here in the room, frank senior vice president at csic and holds our schlessinger chair of energy, and said would you like to be part of this research study. i said sure. he goes, heather it's a lot of work. i'm like, okay.

no heather, it's a lot of work. i was unprepared for the extraordinary amount of work. the people, the numbers the meetings, it was extraordinary. but what is so interesting is we all came from it from a very different perspective. for me it was so helpful to understand the private sector, the technology, i mean i could never understand the technology the two have an appreciation for it and to have the private sector have an appreciation and quite frankly to be totally frightened about the policy environment in which the decisions are being made. and so it was an incredible learning experience, and i think some great colleagues were formed, and i think we're going to continue this conversation well after this study. i have to say again reflections for the peanut gallery. the department of energy requested this study. but in some ways this runs into

what senator murkowski mentioned. sometimes the biggest challenge is us and the inner agency process. because a lot of the conversation is part of the study was really about the department of interior. the department of interior was in these processes and was very engaged, but they didn't request the study. this was about the department of energy trying to understand its emerging role in the arctic. but it was -- it was a part of the process that i think was very interesting. it was to see and to witness and have everyone experience it as well as getting the critical voice from alaska. again, we in the washington policy communities get so focused on our inner agency fights and our regulation and who is doing what and we've always been returned to what's important, and that's the people. and i would be so grateful. again, for my two cents, i think the larger question this study raises, it doesn't come out, but this is my takeaway from it.

does the united states want to develop the offshore arctic resources. do we or don't we? that's not an easy question to answer. and there are a lot of questions about economic viability. there are a lot of questions about are we ready. do we have sufficient infrastructure, search and rescue, do we have what is necessary? and as we've all been watching shell's journey, some may argue it's an odyssey of their efforts to do this, we've learned a lot through that process. but increasingly we're understanding, and i'm so grate grateful you talked about the arctic economic council. when the state department first briefed their chairmanship agenda, i assure you it was not at the the top of the economic issue. they heard in stereo around the circumpolar arctic, that economic development had to be part of the conversation, and there was some reluctance. but i think we need to recognize they heard it. and they're responding.

and so this is important. these voices matter, and we all have a piece of the conversation, and it takes the 200 plus people that came around the table through the vehicle of the national petroleum council study to say we've got a lot of work to do. so again sort of from the observation tower of this process, it was incredible. it was incredible amount of work. and i can't tell you, paul and carol had killed themselves the last 12 months, to shepherd this motley group and get to a really incredible product. so i want to thank you so much. so now i get to turn to some questions, and this is where i get to play tough questioner here. as much as you can share, sort of the challenge of the interagency process here. dewey has a strong role in this but not the total role and right before the study was completed, we had the department of interior propose some new

guidelines, some new regulations, and that sort of entered in at the end of it. what's your perspective on the inner agency dynamic and your cooperative relationship with the department interior as you work on these issues? >> thanks, heather. we have an incredibly robust, as many of you are aware, inner agency dialogue but also an incredible amount of collaboration. particularly with the office of oil and gas at doe and the department of interior, various agencies, for example, in the aftermath of the deep water horizon event. many of the learnings that have been taken up have been developed in collaboration with our office as well as the research partnership for secure energy america, which involves about 140 companies and technology firms. like wise we have as directed by the president's blueprint for secure energy future which calls for an all of the above